The food industry should be regulated: expert

July 3, 2012

"The obesity crisis is made worse by the way industry formulates and markets its products and so must be regulated to prevent excesses and to protect the public good," writes a leading food expert in this week's PLoS Medicine.

Kelly Brownell from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University argues that like all industries, the food industry plays by certain rules: "It must defend its core practices against all threats, produce short-term earnings, and in do doing, sell more food. If it distorts science, creates front groups to do its bidding, compromises scientists, professional organizations, and community groups with contributions, blocks needed public health policies in the service of their goals, or engages in other tactics in ''the corporate playbook,'' this is what is takes to protect business as usual."

He argues that left to regulate itself, the food industry has the opportunity, if not the mandate from shareholders, to sell more products irrespective of their impact on consumers so government, foundations, and other powerful institutions should be working for regulation, not collaboration and says: "Respectful dialogue with industry is desirable, and to the extent industry will make voluntary changes that inch us forward, the public good will be served."

However Brownell cautions: "There must be recognition that this will bring small victories only and that to take the obesity problem seriously will require courage, leaders who will not back down in the face of harsh industry tactics, and regulation with purpose."

Related Stories

The national nutrition policy formulated by Labour and National-led Governments favours the food industry over public health according to new research from the University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand..

In an editorial to launch a major new series on "Big Food," the PLoS Medicine editors and guest editors argue that the multinational food and beverage industry has a growing influence on the global health agenda and a major ...

Health advocates need to organize strong public health campaigns to educate the public and policymakers about the dangers of both sugary beverages and the misleading industry corporate social responsibility campaigns that ...

The use of nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers or nasal sprays—together called "nicotine replacement therapy," or NRT—came into play in 1984 as prescription medicine, which when combined with counseling, helped ...

A well-intentioned government regulation designed to offer healthier options in school vending machines has failed to instill better snacking habits in a sample of schools in Appalachian Virginia, according to a study by ...

Diet is believed to play a role in cancer risk. Current research shows that an estimated 30% of cancers could be prevented through nutritional modifications. While there is a proven link between obesity and certain types ...

3 comments

The food industry is motivated by profit. Work with that motivation. Make selling healthy food more attractive, selling junk less attractive. Maybe tax the junk, use the revenue to help pay for the damage inflicted on the rest of us.

Regulation probably would be complex and ineffective. I can imagine weighty tomes of regulations, expensive to produce, expensive to manage (lots of bureaucrats), and expensive to interpret (bias towards large companies, food monocultures). Food producers will become agile at finding/making loopholes (e.g. ketchup is a vegetable). In the end not much accomplished towards improving people's diets.

Nice idea but it has a major draw back. when you do this it forces the producer to raise prices. This makes it harder for the economically disadvantaged to afford these foods. Ok, just give it to them. vicious cycle! Needs more work.

Regulation only benefit democrats and large industry. Why? The more regulations the harder it is on small business to produce anything. Big business can then drive small business out of business using Governement as a stick. Democrats benefit because more governement unionized employees paying dues which then goes to help elect democrats. Democrats also benefit because more people will be unemployed and dependant on government, which requires more government workers who happen to be unionized.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.